Clara C. Gaither v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3353
___________________________
Clara C. Gaither
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration1
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: August 7, 2025
Filed: August 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
1Frank Bisignano has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social
Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 43(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

Clara Gaither appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the award of
retirement insurance benefits (RIB). We agree with the court that substantial
evidence in the record as a whole supports the decision. See Cropper v. Dudek, 136
F.4th 809, 813 (8th Cir. 2025) (standard of review).
Specifically, we conclude substantial evidence supported the administrative
law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Gaither applied for RIB as part of her
supplemental security income (SSI) benefits redetermination, as the law required her
to apply for all other benefits for which she was eligible. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(2)
(no person shall be eligible for SSI benefits if, after notice to her by Commissioner
that it is likely that she is eligible for any type of Social Security insurance payments,
she fails within 30 days to take all appropriate steps to apply for and, if eligible,
obtain such payments). Substantial evidence also supported the ALJ’s determination
that Gaither was not entitled to RIB payments retroactive to her 62nd birthday, as she
did not become eligible for benefits until she filed an application. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 402(a) (individual who is fully insured, has attained age 62, and has applied for RIB
shall be entitled to RIB beginning with first month throughout which she meets these
criteria). We find the district court did not err in deciding Gaither’s case
notwithstanding her attempt to subpoena a recording of her telephone call with a
Social Security claims representative, see Nash v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 907
F.3d 1086, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (district court does not find additional facts, but
determines whether Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in
record); or in dismissing her action with prejudice, see Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 59 F.3d
78, 79 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review; dismissal with prejudice operates as
rejection of plaintiff’s claims on merits).
2The Honorable D. P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --